Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I quite often see adults cycling on the pavement on Lordship Lane but last night I finally witnessed one causing an accident. A cyclist in his thirties I would guess, passed me at speed on the pavement opposite House of Tipler, he went straight into the side of a small car pulling out of the small gated estate on the west side of the lane. The car was nudging out slowly and the driver could never have seen the fast moving cyclist. The cyclist appeared to go across the bonnet landing on the far side. The cyclist seemed shocked and winded but it was the young driver I felt sorry for. I hung around to make sure the cyclist didn't blame the driver for the incident. I guess because cyclist aren't required to be insured the driver will have to pay for the damage to his car which seems very unfair.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/36063-cycling-on-the-pavement/
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking you're more likely to be struck by lightning, win the lottery or be killed by a motorist going through a red light than be hit by a person riding a bicycle on the pavement.


So what's your point - are you lumping lemmings like the one you describe with all cyclists in a ploy to bash cyclists?


It just sounds like you've been waiting your entire life to view an accident like the one you desribe!

Lowlander, whilst accidents are alway horrid for those involved cycling on the pavement is illegal and dangerous. I am a cyclist but being an adult i cycle on the road. I am increasingly irritated by cyclists who peddle at speed up the wide pavement at the Peckham Rye end of East Dulwich road. On Tuesday i was nearly hit by a cyclist as i walked down to the bus stop outside the Costcutter.
I didn't read it like that at all. As someone who cycles i feel strongly about the fact that cyclists should be respected as road users and given the space they need to cycle safely. However there is never an excuse for riding dangerously, especially on pavements.
Clearly a grown man cycling at speed on the pavement is an idiot. It doesn't mean that I take satisfaction in seeing him hurt. I too feel sorry for the car driver, but my immediate concern in such a situation would be for the well being of the potentially injured man. I think this is Lowlanders point. Thankfully, I think this type of incident is extremely rare.
I am a cyclist, love my fixie, It just annoys me when my two wheeled colleagues pass me at the red lights or ride on the pavement, we don't have any special rights because we aren't polluting. I'm not bashing cyclists, just the few idiots like the guy yesterday.
I have to say I have limited sympathy with people who do not take responsibility for their own safety. Anyone can have an accident, but the behaviour as described sound pretty wreckless to me. I feel the same way about cyclist with ear phones in. Only today a cyclist overtook me on a corner, which was bad enough, she had ear phones in and couldn't hear the rubbish truck coming the other way around the corner. She was forced into my path and I had to take evasive action. In this case, had she been injured by the lorry, my symapthy for her would absolutley have been limited due to her wrecklessness. Why should I have concern for people who show limited concern for themselves and others?

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The car driver was at fault too. He should have

> checked more careful. Highway code is quite clear.

>

>

> https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care

> -204-to-225/pedestrians-205-to-210



I don't see how the driver could have been more cautious, his driveway joins Lordship Lane beside a shop and he came out very slowly until he had a view from his side window by which time the cyclist was in the air.

I was walking towards the driveway as the cyclist came past me, it was like a slow motion film. I actually think other pedestrians blocked the cyclists view of the car til the last minute. Had the cyclist been on the road this would never have happened.

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> struck by lightning, win the lottery or be killed

> by a motorist going through a red light than be

> hit by a person riding a bicycle on the pavement.


Great stat - what's the source please?

does seem a strange stat - unless he means a tenner win :)



ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> > struck by lightning, win the lottery or be

> killed

> > by a motorist going through a red light than be

> > hit by a person riding a bicycle on the

> pavement.

>

> Great stat - what's the source please?

Apparently 5 people per year are killed by lightening: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-282884


And "According to the Department for Transport (DfT), in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities.


...


"Indeed, bike riders insist it is they who are vulnerable. Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died but no drivers were killed."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The car driver was at fault too. He should have

> checked more careful. Highway code is quite clear.

>

>

> https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care

> -204-to-225/pedestrians-205-to-210


Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as described by the OP.


Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than just reading it.

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> > struck by lightning, win the lottery or be

> killed

> > by a motorist going through a red light than be

> > hit by a person riding a bicycle on the

> pavement.

>

> Great stat - what's the source please?



LadyDeliah kindly gives the lightning and red lights


Lottery is 1 in 14 million (and I mean the jackpot). Plus you have to buy a ticket, which increases the odds :-)

> Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as

> described by the OP.

>

> Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed

> wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the

> chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then

> reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than

> just reading it.


We don't know how fast the cyclist was going. The car was on the pavement and clearly the driver hadn't looked carefully either way before driving on to it - otherwise they would have seen the cyclist. I am not saying the cyclists wasn't at fault too. However not being able to see is not an excuse for hitting someone - especially if you are driving on the pavement.

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as

> > described by the OP.

> >

> > Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed

> > wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the

> > chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then

> > reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than

> > just reading it.

>

> We don't know how fast the cyclist was going. The

> car was on the pavement and clearly the driver

> hadn't looked carefully either way before driving

> on to it - otherwise they would have seen the

> cyclist. I am not saying the cyclists wasn't at

> fault too. However not being able to see is not an

> excuse for hitting someone - especially if you are

> driving on the pavement.



The cyclist rode into the side of the car. The car didn't hit the cyclist. The cyclist was on the pavement. Cyclist 100% to blame.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...